Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

03 Aug 2015 4:43:06am

Text

PreviousMessage

I think it is fair to say, that in politics in the twenty first century, politicians straddle the ideological spectrum. Subsquently, I agree, that it is hard to define with any coherence, indeed conviction what, the far left or right is. I also agree that conservatism has become an ideological dinasoar, and this is mainly due to it be no longer relevant or true to the needs of people who live in an era of pluralism and more direct democracy. Indeed, the safest way forward, ironically, is what conservatives would prosecute, albeit, covertly, is not to make any rash statements, or changes, and recycle as Howard did, if you like plagiarise the policies of conservatives like Thatcher, Longly, Reagan, under the guise of protecting civil liberties. Furthermore, conservatives are reactionary, and not proactive and make more effective oppositons because it appeals to their notion of not change for society, but for political expedience, ie: framing an argument through rhetoric, whether in government or oppostion. The reason why Howard failed is because his policies were red herings, the only glue that maintained his power, was presenting policies that were to be implemented by the market, hence, the propensity for privatisation. This approach meant no transparency and no accountability and no infrastructure, but a huge surplus, under the guise of being great economic managers. Furthermore, that is why no matter the circumstances, even amid a global financial crisis would you have, provided the stiimulus package. Instead, straddling the conversative neo liberal end of the ideological spectrum you would wait and see, and never jeapodise the bottom line that is maintaining a surplus. The last thing I would add is that the progressive style of Rudd, can only occur in a substantive way or coherent way, and be argued cogently, if you believe in govt playing a big role, and not the more Darwinian view of every man for himself, survival of the fittest, the laizez fairre policies that caused the financial crisis. We need to be very cautious in describing convervatives as pragmatic or realists, and progressives as idealists, because it is misleading. Indeed, language that is framed this way can sound pejorative or some how a virtue. John Howard often called himself a realist, however, it was his being out of touch with reality that lost him the election. His verson of realism or pragmatism was not to say okay here is a problem and lets deal with it before it happens, rather lets wait and see. Then if the problem is not addressed he can rationalise the inaction premised on having a surplus. Here is the rub, Kevin Rudd, by trying to straddle the divide to cut across partisan politics, for example, employing Costello to run the future fund, is becoming increasingly incoherent to the electorate. In other words, a progressive, major reformists, who is proactive. However, he like Howard is reactive in a bid to survive politically, and this leads to a lack of coherency.